Us and Them

“I can simply say they were paid back in their own coin. Do you think those who evicted our people were peace loving unarmed people? Our people just retaliated. For 11 months our people who were evicted and could not return home despite several efforts at initiating peace talks with the opposition."

With these words, the Chief Minister of West Bengal finally withdrew his mask of neutrality and emerged as the person he really is. He thus dispersed all doubts regarding his intentions and responsibilities and clarified that his loyalty towards his party comes before anything else. With this revelation, many a heart broke, many a tear fell and many a hope crumbled, for foolishly enough, millions had tried to believe otherwise through all these years. Anyone who has followed Indian politics, even with a passing interest, however, would probably have realized such an eternal truth long ago. The peculiarity of the situation wasn't the revelation itself, but its acceptance from the culprit himself.

Barring a very few exceptions, the fundamental aim of any politician of our society is to secure power and remain in power, power for himself and power for his group. The hunger for power and the thirst to repress have been the chief motivations for most post-Independence Indian politicians. To achieve this goal, politicians usually resort to the age old trick of promises: promises of food, of running water, of roads, of jobs, of electricity... and of everything that India still lacks. And of course, such promises are seldom kept to ensure that there are always plenty of things left to be promised during the subsequent election campaigns. A second element adds variety and strength to the arsenal of the politician. It's that of fear that is to be injected in the minds of people. An able politician uses both his weapons appropriately and skillfully to strengthen and lengthen his hold on the throne. Responsibility to people or humanity never is a priority. But still, most politicians at least officially maintain a neutral face, and the chief minister was noted for the same.

The ruling party of West Bengal has hold on to this doctrine for the past three decades; it has used a perfect mixture of lure and fear to hold its ground. An impeccable organization of the party throughout the state and a conspicuous absence of any political opposition, either strong or respectable, have helped them achieve their goal smoothly. However, there have also been a few hiccups, and the developments at Nandigram would certainly classify as one.

They first started it all by planning to sell a huge piece of land to industrialists, disregarding the fact that this land was inhabited by farmers who would have nowhere to go after the proposed eviction. The villagers united and began anti-government agitations. With a clumsy administration, things quickly went out of control, and at some point the dissenting villagers drove away the machinery of the ruling party along with a horde of their supporters from the disputed territory. The height of the crisis was reached in the middle of the night on March 14, 2007, when the state police shot down several villagers. Clashes between the ruling part and the protesters turned more and more ugly with the passage of time, with regular cases of murder, rape and destruction of property, mostly on the agitators' side, and with anarchy prevailing across the region. Finally, an army of cadres of the ruling party regained control of the area by brute force as they stormed in with firearms and re-installed the evicted villagers, with the police ordered to stay out of the entire operation. The seize of Nandigram finally ended in arson and bloodshed, with several dissenters brutally murdered and severely injured, and many rendered homeless.

Resort to violence and brutality to strengthen position is not a rare phenomenon in post-independence politics of Bengal or India. What made this particular case different was the extensive media coverage of events. Despite repeated half truths, suppression of facts and lies from the government, people this time had the opportunity to see videos that showed firing, armed processions and villagers being interviewed; and videos and images have a much stronger impact on the human mind than newsprint. This lead to a general awareness among people and excited especially those who still had some faith left in the government, as Calcutta subsequently witnessed a protest rally of a 100,000 people, headed by eminent intellectuals of our time. This was something out of the ordinary, for a rally without any political affiliation was something rarely hard of in our city.

The state and the ruling party were not prepared for the same, and the mass criticism from different apolitical sections injected a fear into the minds of the politicians, which readily surfaced as fury. The top leaders resorted to a volley of curses and personal abuse that further tarnished their characters before the civil society. As ministers threatened to literally "throw protesters into the sea", and as apologistic pseudo-intellectuals raised their voices against the protesters and for the government, arranging a counter rally, the party workers, perhaps unintentionally, lost all their camouflage of courtesy and exposed their vicious tooth and nail, and found, to their utter dismay, that they now had the governor, the media, the high court and a large part of the population criticizing them. The demarcation between the oppressors and the oppressed became distinct at this point.

The line that seperates us, the people, from them, the rulers, is now clear for everyone to see. They rule and we are ruled; they order and we obey; they are the repressers and we are the repressed. All this is practiced under the pseudonym of democracy, where they only act as if they work for us. As long as we act the way they want us to, the system gets along smoothly. When we resist, or even criticize, calamity strikes. In the post-Nandigram scenario, politicians find themselves cornered with all the neutral forces against them, and they resort to slandering everyone who voice a single word against their atrocities: be it the law, the media or the most respected poets and movie directors of our time.

In all probability, the events of Nandigram that unfolded through 2007 would not have a major impact in the politics of West Bengal. However, they would still be remembered for their role in bringing into light the often-unseen line of separation that exists eternally between the chair and the ground. A line that is based on fear: on one side of which dwell the fearsome, and on the other dwell the fearful. The two can never be united, for the prosperity and growth of them depend on the suppression of us. The chief minister should be thanked heartily for making this as clear as daylight.

Disappearing Languages

The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

The Bible tells us of the Tower of Babel, which was built to reach the heavens by a united humanity, all speaking a single language. When God saw that humans would be able to do whatever they set their minds to, so he confused their unified language and scattered them.

Fascinating as the myth is, it is unlikely that at one point of time all human beings communicated in a universal language. From the dawn of history, variety has been the characteristic of a culture, and different languages have acted as the backbones of different civilizations. Long term geographical isolation has facilitated the development of new languages, while increasing interaction among groups at a later stage in history has helped enrich these languages. Media that emerged from the necessity of communication and an urge for expression of the wandering food gatherer have gone on to grow into rich languages and dialects, and have nourished different cultures to grow upon them. All that has played a significant role in the journey of humanity from the ice age caves to to the skyscraper --- literature, history, philosophy, religion, and science --- all need language for support.

Languages are not constant. Neither are they eternal. They are born, they grow and they die as well. With interaction among cultures and with decline and growth of different civilizations, languages of the past have altered significantly. New languages have often flourished and old dialects have faded away into oblivion. In many cases, driven by hatred and prejudice, man has often deliberately eradicated certain cultures, along with the languages spoken by those people. Several South and Central American languages are worthy of mention in this context, the dooms of which were brought about by the Spanish and Portugese invaders. Those which had stood through the winds of change have modified and reshaped themselves with time, refreshing their vocabularies and restructuring their grammars often incorporating elements from other languages. Such variations occur at a very slow rate and are only observable after a considerable time has elapsed.

At present however, languages of the world face a new challenge. With the tides of Westernisation flowing stronger than ever (which we often confuse as Globalsation), less well represented languages are disappearing at a rate faster than ever. According to a recent study, the rate of extinction of language far exceeds those of the most endangered species of birds and animals. Dialects spoken by indigenous people, tribal languages in particular face the greatest danger, for they usually have very few speakers, they seldom have a script and rarely do they have any use as a means of official or academic communication. There are certain aboriginal languages in Australia that are literally left with but a handful of speakers. Many tribal languages in India, too, face a similar threat. Judging by the trends one may sadly conclude that within a few hundred years, all such languages would cease to exist.

Many of the mainstream regional languages in India, too, are facing threats of a similar kind, though not of the same intensity. English has found its way deep into the tongue of the city-dweller, much deeper than it ever did when India was under the British Crown. This spread of English, which is commendable, has been unfortunately accompanied by an apathy towards the vernacular, and comunication in English between native speakers of a regional language has become a common phenomenon in India. Unlike the Far East, South Asia has not been able to find a way to incorporate regional languages as modes of expressing scienctific ideas, and the existance of 22 'national languages' (apart from more than a hundred tribal languages) have rendered impossible the use of regional languages in administration. The bulk of the younger generation of today, especially those hailing from the major cities communicate in a confused conglomerate of languages that consist of elements from English, Hindi and the regional language. Vernacular literature of the last century, despite their great literary value are being neglected. This situation is further exacerbated by a draught in quality literature in regional languages in more recent times. More and more able writers from the subcontinent are finding it easier to express their imagination and ideas in English compared to Bengali or Malayalam. An analogous trend is also reflected in popular entertainment. Bollywood movie songs these days have chunks of lyrics in Desi English, something almost unimaginable a decade or two ago, when a fiery 'Shut Up!' from the heroine or a shy 'I love you' from the hero would suffize to bring out the 'Bilayti' aura required for the movie, coupled with settings in a European landscape.

The current trends depict a very grim picture of an urban society in the not so distant future, where everyone belongs to a grossly homogeneous 'global' culture and speaks a single language, and where all other languages are studied only by linguists and historians. Some of the local languages may still exist as dialect of the poor and the rural masses, but deprived of their previous glory and in a state of severe negligence. Such a linguistic rift would add up to other socio-economic and cultural factors and magnify the gaping divide of mankind which appears to be imminent some time in the future. One can only hope that such a nightmare would not become reality.

The Mother of All Conflicts

"Imagine there's no country
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too "

If we could indeed realize Lennon's dream the world would have been a better and peaceful place to live in. But unfortunately, it's a lot easier to imagine such a harmonious system devoid of barriers than to implement it in reality.

But why is it so? Why are human beings so belligerent inherently? The answer to the question, perhaps lies in the depths of prehistory, to a time even before the dawn of civilizations.

Human civilization initially flourished in isolation. People developed languages, customs and societies within those isolated spheres; without knowing that a world existed beyond that sphere of familiarity. Men grew up like a breed of toads in a well. Then one day they encountered a new breed of toads, which looked different, and jumped and croaked in a manner henceforth unknown. Both the breeds decided that the new group was harmful to them. So they started to fight. Never, for once, occurred to them, that despite all the physical differences, the new breed was a group of toads after all! Never, for once, occurred to them, that sharing a bit of their wells and ponds among themselves would do them no harm!

Almost all the conflicts we humans encounter in life arise from these external differences. Difference in religion, difference in nationality, difference in ethnicity, difference in social and cultural background: and in general, difference in any of the specific parameters that define a particular system or group of individuals. Since the earliest days of civilization, history of mankind is the history of conflicts: of devastating wars where one culture has eradicated another. The Greeks obliterated Troy; the Romans demolished Carthage; Rama and his people destroyed Lanka. Ancient Mesopotemia witnessed the foundation and destruction of several civilizations: one upon another. History is replete with such examples, and the tradition has persisted through the middle ages (notable examples would be the crusades, Arabic aggresion throughout Asia, and the gory exploits of European colonists in the Americas, Africa and Asia that followed the 'age of discovery'. ) to modern times. The conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kashmir, in Bosnia and Chechnya; and the eternal clashes between Israelites and Palestinians are but bearers of that same tradition.

When the Spanish conquistadors arrived in South America, they encountered cultures inherently different from their own. They quickly decided that the Incas were but a new breed of barbarians, and plunedered and looted their riches. One of the greatest cultures of the world disappeared from the face of the earth within a few decades, because some people were too prejudiced to tolerate them. Such events occurred and re-occurred throughout history. India suffered such cultural aggressions for more than a millenium. The Arabs and Turks during their invasion ruthlessly destroyed temples, universities and human lives in India for the sole reason that they bore a belief system and tradition markedly different from their own. When the Europeans arrived, they, too took the onus upon themselves to 'civilize' the natives in their own way. The invaders almost never tried to relate to the cultural heritages of India, or try to accept its greatness despite differences from their own civilizations. They never tried to understand these new people, they never thought they might have something to learn from their civilization, because they were too blinded by a superiority complex.

The fundamental philosophy that guides an imperialist power is this prejudice of superiority among peers and a desire to make other nations a direct or indirect part of the empire. Which, in a broader sense, is to remove differences by making different identities dissolve into the identity, ideology and system of the empire. This has been the foundation of all empires, from the Romans to the Arabs, and from Stalinist Russia to Nazi Germany.

There is a prevalent hypotheis that religion is the source of all inter-cultural prejudices and conflicts. An important thing to realize at this point is that there is not one particular mode of difference that may be identified as the root cause of hostility. As long as people are happy to adhere to their own religion without interfering with others' belief systems, a peaceful co-existance prevails. Conflict arises the moment one community starts to feel that theirs is the right path and that everything else is rubbish. Then they start to criticise others' ways, and in no time the thin line between criticism and mud-slinging is crossed. It isn't religion, or ideology, or race, or caste, or nation alone: it's the basic notion that connects all and more of them. It's the fundamental notion of difference among groups; and the inherent inability to accept them. And this prejudiced feeeling automatically develops into a severe selfish mentality, nationalistic to the core, when groups start fighting to secure tracts of land for themselves. And war ensues.


It's this psychology of intolerance that makes an Arab hostile towards an American, it's this sentiment that fuels hatred between an Indian and a Pakistani, or a Hindu and a Muslim, or, in general, between a member of group A and another of group B. Religion, though one of the major contributors, is not the sole reason. Events that lead to the war of Bangladesh's independence were initiated by the difference of language. It was fought between followers of the same religion. The seeds of racial clashes in the US and South Africa burgeoned from a prejudice on physical appearance. That too, had nothing to do with religion. And then of course, we have so many nationalistic 'movements' and wars fought between countries to talk about.


The basic cause of almost all conflicts, then, is not the difference itself, but the inability to accept it. We expect people to be like us, and censure severely whatever seems alien to us, be it thought, look, or social norms and cultural nuances. That's where we destroy places of worship of others, term their philosophies as heretic and sacrilegious; force them to follow our path, and, when they do not, set out to eradicate them from the face of the earth. And we try to secure everything good for our 'own people', be it land, wealth or power.


The concept of a homogeneous global society where everyone thinks and acts the same way is an utopian one. The world would never be like that, and it should never be like that, too; for this difference is inherent and natural. Besides they bring variety, and variety brings progress. Human beings and their societies have been, are and would continue to remain inherently different from each other. But there are underlying similarities among them that go far beyond these different exteriors, and that's where we need to focus. That's where we get to realize that having a black skin, or wearing a turban, or eating beef, or worshipping more than one god do not make people our enemies; nor do that make them thugs, or stupids, or infidels. These differences are but much minor compared to the invisible bond that connects all humanity. Once we realize that, we would learn to happily respect and appreciate the deviations, and be friends with people from all over the planet despite differences.

The Traveller's Song

I don't know where the winds came from, and where they'll lead me to:
I only know I'm moving on, and that's all I can do.
Forgotten is my origin and dusky is my past
I move on with a steady pace because I know I must.
The roads criss cross like cobwebs, like arteries and veins
I walk through streets and avenues, and along crooked lanes.
The heavens melt in horizon and new roads start from old
I've walked through darkened alleys too, and across streets of gold.
I have the sun and moon with me, and stars show me my way,
With blessings from the mighty sky I travel everyday.
I have my dreams to guide me and give me magic wings,
To take me past the stormy nights and beyond dusky ruins.
The lights ahead, like illusions, charmingly dance and bend;
I know I'll meet my destiny, upon my journey's end.

Arranged Marriages

Well, personally, I've nothing against arranged marriages in general (though I would like to prefer the other option for myself, if I ever decide to bite the bait, that is): I've seen love marriages going completely wrong and arranged marriage couples living happily ever after. But often there are certain disturbing aspects of an arranged marriage.

The fact that we don't get much of a prior knowledge about the spouse-to-be might result in being stuck with an individual with a perfectly different mindset: different tastes, different values and that sort of stuff. Most of these unlucky folks can't break off an arranged marriage easily and tend to suffer forever with a long face. Marriage would always demand some amount of a compromise, but the amount is likely to be higher in an arranged one. Such marriages are like gambling one's luck on a Vegas Roulette; and the future of such negotiated relationships are as uncertain as the position or momentum of a rotating electron. Moreover, meeting and checking out someone with the sole interest of making him or her a spouse seems too artifical a way of establishing a relationship.

But the main issue is the way marriages are arranged usually. Nasty things like caste-matching, Kundali-mapping, Dowry are so often involved in such weddings. Almost all advertisements on the matrimonial columns specify the preferred caste and sub caste. Though expected amount of dowry is not stated on the advertisements, parents of a prospective groom most often expect to make a decent deal through the negotiations; and the bride's family sighs a breath of relief if the demands are manageable for them. Astrologers fatten their purses by making most of the opportunity, as they 'analyze' horoscopes to predict whether a pair would sustain happily or not.

Then there's the practice of 'bride-seeing': where the prospective bride sits pretty draped in her best Banarasi, dazzling in the resplendent jewellery that she inherited from Mom; with the prospective in laws staring at her with inquisitve eyes, in between munching the samosa and the sweets that are brought in aplenty. How perfectly disgusting that might be for a girl of dignity, having to market herself like a difficult-to-sell commodity!

These days many people go for some sort of a milder version of the above. They cut off the dowry, the routine of planet-matching and the formal 'bride-seeing' part. The persons involved see each other for some time before the marriage is sealed, and spend some time together to check if their frequencies are well tuned. When things appear to be going nice, only then the green signal is flashed. Such modernized arranged marriages are pretty much acceptable. More so in a society where inm ost cases the male and female still don't often get to see each other and mingle together in a casual, friendly sort of way.

Sports other than cricket in India

Some days ago Dola Banerjee won gold at an archery world event. The newspapers celebrated her victory cheerfully and she was received by the homeland with much joy and excitement. But peculiarly enough, it was the first time most of us even heard of her. Something similar happened with Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, who won us the sole medal at the 2004 Olympics. These, more or less summarize the plight of sports other than cricket in India.

The above examples contradict the popular contention that these sports are neglected because the players don't perform well at the international level. Of course there are many reasons specific to different sports; but ultimately, it's the lack of investment in these sports that's responsible mostly for their decline. Money remains to be the driving force in anything in today's world; and that's where these sports suffer. Cricket, because of it's huge popularity gets a great media coverage in India. BCCI and the regional cricket boards get richer and richer. They bring forth the infrastructure that's so deficient in other sports. Also, because of the lucrative prospects involved, and the publicity cricketers get, children are encouraged to play cricket. Clubs and coaching centres sprout all around because of an increasing demand. Young cricketers come forth and cricket maintains its popularity despite occasional poor performances by the national squad.

More or less the reverse happens in most other sports and they take a backseat. Lack of money leads to lack of infrastructure and training facility for players. Media either doesn't cover them at all or cover in a lukewarm manner. As a result, they become less popular and still less people try them. It's a vicious circle.

The involvement of politics naturally has had a negative effect. Constant bickering among factions often take an ugly look and make these sports suffer terribly. The ill-will between Dalmia and Pawar isn't sufficient to destroy cricket because of the latter's overwhelming popularity. But in athletics, boxing or table tennis, the administrators' politics make bodily blows to the sports and players. Without any significant media coverage, bad blood flows unchecked and severely dampens development.

Censorship: justified?

"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."

Less than a week ago, images of a terrified lady in a blue sari under attack by a group of middle-aged men were doing rounds in the Indian news channels. The men who were seen trying to hurl chairs and laptops to their victim, were identified as distinguished members of the legislative assembly of Andhra Pradesh, and they were infuriated by a book that censured the Quran; and the woman was Taslima Nasreen, the Bangladeshi poet turned fugitive, and the author of the book in question. Though shattered mentally, fortunately Taslima managed to come out of it unscathed. The incident however, raised an age old question that society has asked but never found a direct answer to, that of freedom of speech and of expression. The question of censorship and that of its justification.

It's known that a society with strict rules of censorship never leads to the formation of new ideas; and always obliterates any sign of opposition against the establishment. Even the smallest hint of criticism of the government is erased from everything that is to be considered fit for public viewing in such systems. Classic examples of such extreme censorships include Nazi Germany of the 1930's; and the Soviet Union under the Communist regime. In both these societies, all that the citizens got to see in movies and read in books were government propaganda. The Cultural Revolution in Maoist China sort of epitomizes the ugliness of censorship when people hatefully denounced their own history and ruthlessly destroyed ancient artifacts, texts and paintings.

In most ‘modern’ countries like ours, however, a milder form of censorship exists. Though one is free to criticize the government or social mores, a limit is set as to how far one can go while criticizing something. And, there are certain sensitive issues, unrelated to politics, where censorship rules are not clearly defined. Sex and violence are two such areas where it is very difficult to determine what is suitable for public viewing and what is not.

Pornography, for instance, is banned in certain countries while it is legal in many. Whether explicit display of sex should be expurgated from books and movies is an issue where intellectuals vary in opinion. One might say that such materials are detrimental for the healthy development of an adolescent brain; while the other may argue that these things have been popular since ancient times; and denying them is nothing but hypocrisy. The bitter truth is that porn cannot be obliterated through censorship, and the best thing the government can do is to enforce certain regulations to ensure that exploitation is minimized. As far as violence is concerned, just because some depressed psycho like Cho was inspired apparently by certain movies, and that some looney teenager broke his neck while attempting a Superman stunt, there is no reason in banning anything.

Finally, back to where we began: ethnic groups and ideological issues. As a thumb rule, any social or moral idea that might seem justifiable by the rest of the society may infuriate a particular group who would argue that such an idea is derogatory for their community. Or when an individual speaks against established ideas, his or her views are seldom met with cheerful acceptance. In such matters, the censor boards tend to be ultra-careful so as to remain politically correct. It is then that they ponder over whether Da Vinci Code should be screened at all in India or whether Hussain should be allowed to carry on his exhibitions and speak equivocally of Nasreen or Rushdi.

Censorship essentially suffers from two major fallacies: the lack of confidence on the prudence of the citizens, and, more importantly, the right of freedom of expression.Of course, if someone has anything to say against a work of art or literature is free to criticise it, harangue it if they feel like, but they have no right to ban it. People should ultimately be prudent enough to decide what's good for them, any way; without any help from a cultural guardian. Under no circumstance can official forbiddance on any creative work or idea can be supported; until and unless the latter is known to be harmful in a direct manner. Merely 'negative influence on society' can never be a pretext to prohibit anything. Or a pretext to hurl chairs at a woman, for that matter.

Of dreams and smart goals

Some months back I attended a training session where there was a seminar on how we should set up 'SMART' goals in our lives: on how we should transform our ambitions that are nourished and cherished as somewhat vague and undefined dreams into concrete and definite aspirations. It was one of those sessions where the employee gets a moment's respite from his daily ordeals as he dozes off in the AC, stretching casually on the most comfortable chairs as the trainer goes on with his lectures all day long. Coming back to the point, a 'SMART' goal, I gathered, is supposed to be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and tangible (or timebound) at the same time. The management people will elaborate on each word and provide a detailed explanation of them, but essentially, the thing is that we should set precise targets for us and work to acheive them in a perfectly systematic manner. Simple, definite and comprehensible.

Although demanding a lot of foresight, the principle of SMART goals, when rigidly followed, is a sure road to success. Aspirations, however, are usually too qualitative to put them in the form of a mathematical expression. We grow up believing in vague and impractical aspirations that are far from reality. The doctrine we are discussing, in essence, encourages us to set well-defined objectives in lieu of those dreamy wishes for the future. Undoubtedly, when a dream is quantized to a series of subsequent easy-to-attain steps, the acheivement of the goal becomes simpler, usually at the cost of the grandeur of the final destination. The pragmatist would be satisfied with that, for to him, it's better to settle for something decent rather than wasting his life in the quest of something magnificent but unachievable. The mediocre would get a result beyond his expectation by channelizing his thought and actions in the course of a smart target. Most of us would be able to work up to our full potential in the process. And society, by and large, would be able to maintain its prosperity through the success of the individual.

A miniscule portion of the poulation, however, would never compromise their grand aspirations: they would stagger in an awkward and unsmart manner along the streets of life in the quest of something magical; they would stumble occassionally and many of them would fall. But some would still eventually reach their destiny amidst criticism and adversities; and in their success they would take society itself one step forward.